I'll toss a long on the fire for you, but I hate to tell you that global warming is a reality. I know it's hard to believe during the winter, especially the ones we have up north and near the Great Lakes.
However, we are welcoming Polar Bears to the endangered species list now. They are drowning in record numbers because their habitat, the polar ice cap, is melting, with large chunks of it breaking off, floating out to sea, and stranding bears miles from solid ground.
I'm just not a Believer but I could use a Polar Bear Coat for Christmas even with the risk of having it spray painted by those wackos. How ironic.. isn't spray paint one of those nasty killers of the ozone?
My uncle is a democrat, very dedicated to his party. Even he jokes about standing outside using aerosol cans praying for that global warming we've been promised. :P
The reason we are having colder winters is a result of global warming.
Global warming stalls the natural water-flow patterns of the Atlantic ocean that pump tropical air toward the north Atlantic, and carry cold water south, leading to much colder winters in areas which include our neck of the woods.
It might just be on its way ......... I am here in Alaska of course and we went from -20 plus in our area up to 40 degrees and melted two feet of snow off the top of our 5 these past days. The creek has thawed and the top and froze and thawed again.
We are supposed to go back to freezing which means the north winds must be blowing down and sending you the south winds back your direction.
Hope you warm up soon ........ but .......... becareful the ice it causes when melting.
30 years ago, it was *global cooling* that was promoted.
I guess the blue color over the world didn't look as *alarming* as the red from global warming.
FROM
Newsweek
April 28, 1975 Studies
The Cooling World
There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.
Reprinted from Financial Post - Canada, Jun 21, 2000
Personally -- I think both sides are alarmists that don't deserve the time of day.
hmm, doesn't seem to have posted the cartoon. sorry
It was a snowstorm stuck car, with two people trudging through waist deep snow. One says to the other, "keep repeating, 'at least we don't have hurricanes, at least we don't have hurricanes....' "
There is no doubt about the warming. There are varying degrees of doubt about the cause. If the cause is a combination of natural and human factors, there are varying degrees of doubt about how much to attribute to each. And of course there is the most doubt about what we can and should do, and how we should do it...e.g. do we put iron clamps on our emmisions while our neighbors are allowed to spew toxins galore over our borders.
But to go back to the opening of this thread, we need a perspective. Like realize a one degree change in our average temperature over 20 to 30 years is more significant than out 40 or 50 degree (in the Dakotas at least) day to day swings in temperature.
If warmer temperatures warm the Great Lakes, for example, even a little, say enough to keep the ice off. you can really get Buffaloed with heavy snow when cold air moves over those lakes, since it will pick up a lot more moisture than it would blowing over ice.
If warmer temperatures warm the Great Lakes, for example, even a little, say enough to keep the ice off. you can really get Buffaloed with heavy snow when cold air moves over those lakes, since it will pick up a lot more moisture than it would blowing over ice.
My house is 4 blocks from Lake Superior. For the record -- I have lived here for 26 years. Ice is a regular thing on the big lake -- year after year after year.
Sometimes we are *locked* in by ice here in Duluth, but that is because the winds blow it in to shore, after it has formed out in the main body of the lake.
The Great Lakes NEVER freeze over totally.
Yes -- I will grant you that ice forms (the average temp of Lake Superior is no more than 38 to 40 degrees year round), but it never freezes over like the backyard pond you might have in your neighborhood.
To propound that cold air moving over the Great Lakes, picking up moisture from unfrozen water is ludicrous.
Regardless of what folks uninitiated with the area think, the lakes do not freeze over, and whatever *cold air* passes over, it always passes over water, rather than ice.
Global warming is a reality, but it isn't as simple as just "the whole Earth getting warmer all the time" but is actually a complicated "climate change" that basically just means that the weather gets worse over time. As others have pointed out, the ice in the Arctic have melted at a record level, resulting in the deaths of many polar bears, as well as destroying the Inuit way of life. To them, global warming is a real part of daily life.
However, even calling it "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer, as what is really happening is that things are basically just getting more unstable. As the temperature rises, more ice melts, the ocean's water levels raise, but it gets worse. A half degree raise of temperature in the gulf of Mexico is equivalent to the energy of nearly a million atomic bombs. I live in Houston, which is not directly on but near the gulf coast. We are going to see a lot more Katrinas and Ritas in this region, because the energy caused by the raise in temperatures feeds the intensity of the storms. Global warming is appropriate here as well as the arctic, but eventually it will lead to global cooling.
The problem is that as the ice melts, the fresh water will pour into the oceans and disturb the currents that keep the northern areas of the world warm. After the currents are shut down (which is already happening at an alarming pace) places like England and the northern U.S. will eventually be covered in ice and way too cold for people to keep heavily populated. Eventually, the cycle may go back and things balance out to the way things are now, maybe they won't.
This whole thing will take a long time to come to full fruition, but the effects are already being felt. Record heat waves in the summer, record hurricane seasons, and record storms in the winter all are potentially the results of climate change. It's likely to only get worse.
On a side note, I've not seen any serious scientists questioning global warming. I know Michael Chrichton recently wrote a book making global warming sound like some sort of conspiracy, but it was a work of fiction. The few scientists that have said that global warming does not exist always seem to have been given huge grants to fund their research by companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron. There is no credible argument against global warming.
The reason we are having colder winters is a result of global warming.
This cracks me up. That is like saying when one is standing outside without a coat when it is fifteen degrees below zero that; "The reason I am freezing is because it is so warm outside........."
30 years ago, it was *global cooling* that was promoted.
I guess the blue color over the world didn't look as *alarming* as the red from global warming.
Personally -- I think both sides are alarmists that don't deserve the time of day.
True David ... but they get the time of day, plus millions in tax dollars for research .. that is what it is all about.
Far as I can tell, there is of course global warming, in a natural trend that will eventually become serious cooling. A little warming is much better than the cooling part. But we would have a thousand years or more to think about it. The Kyoto traty is pure politics, not science. It is funny that people claim to feel global warming when the change is like 1.5 degrees over the last 100 years, and only half a degree in the last 50. Like yeah, it seems a half a degree warmer today than it did on average on this date 50 years ago. LOL
Even the whacko kyoto treaty enthusiasts admit the treaty would make a minimal difference, but it would help cripple the US economy. As I understand it, India and China were exempt. What a world, what a world ... I'm melting ... I'm melting .... LOL name that movie!
Polar ice caps aren't close to melting ... if it got warm enough, warmer ocean temps would mean more evaporation and more precipitation ... yielding more snow up north where the snow never melts ... I guess that means bigger glaciers. Rising ocean temps could actually mean a decrease in ocean levels ... as some say has happened before.
What I really mean to say is WHERE IS MY MILLION DOLLAR GRANT. Give me some money and I will throw good parties for my global warming compadres and we can all keep debating on the taxpayer dime. OK, $100K will suffice, but then it is BYOB.
What I know is the last month has been 10 degrees below average, so it must be global cooling. Or maybe since I haven't been chatting, there is a shortage of hot air around here. ;)
This has been a 3 glasses of wine response ... end of my last year wine ...
I've only had two glasses of wine and ten hot wings, but I distinctly remember reading something about the north and south poles moving and shifting because of the earth's rotational pull. Something about the North Pole ending up in Kansas, I think?
I've been looking for it again, but all I can find is articles how the earth's thawing in some areas which is good for one species of penguins but worse for others. (Global Warming) this article also mentions that it's freezing more in some areas, but warmer in others....
Another thing I've thought of and that could be totally irrelevant is how here in FL they build houses based on fifty year flood plain plans, but Disney and the other attractions have built on 100 year plans. It seems as though that's only as far back as any records really go, so how do we know for sure this is global warming and not really just a shifting in the climates and locations?
Just pondering as I'm no scientist and know really nothing about any of this.But, I also remember being taught in TWI that "the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" as meaning that God protects the Eearth and us and that we don't have to be worried about the Earth ever being destroyed by any means.... But then again, I consider the source on this....
What really ticks me off about this whole global warming (or cooling) crap is ---
where is the data from the beginning of time --- eh???
The very best that scientist's can do is from recorded data, and how far back does that extend??
Maybe 100 years like you said. Shucks-- I'll give them another hundred on top of that, but anything they might say, deduce, or declare is miniscual compared to the time that earth has been here (be it 6,000 years, or millions of years -- depending on your theology).
How do they know what it was like originally? They don't. Sure -- they can make deductions, educated guesses, yada yada, but to say that *this is the way it is* is like farting in the wind -- smell dissipating and no substance.
And you are right about India and China being exempt from Kyoto. Why is US of A being called to task, when others aren't?
If everyone is so all-fired concerned about this *imminent threat*, why in the @@@@ aren't all nations being made to comply??? You're right about the Kyoto treaty being nothing more than an effort to cripple US (read U.S.)
And to those who think that global cooling will be a result of global warming, I have only this to say.
Cooling was *preached* 30 years ago, and warming is relatively new on the scene.
In terms that an ex-cult member might understand ---
That's like preaching Armegeddon before salvation.
What is being touted now is putting the cart before the horse.
The reason we are having colder winters is a result of global warming.
And the video recording of the Rodney King beating was erroneous,
and O.J. Simpson was really innocent too.
Same logic. :(
It doesn't work in real life.
Though some alarmists will make it appear to be so.
It is all about the "redistribution of wealth", via some of Al Gore's philosophy and others. Basically, it is WRONG that we Americans live as happily and as abundantly as we do, and we must "re-distribute this wealth". Never a problem that Al Gore is filthy rich off of his coal mine in Tennessee. Therefore, we must wrack and ruin America's economy by taxing us to the max on fossil fuels, and curtailing our use of said fuels by a large percentage according to the "Kyoto protocol". This way, our economy will be wrecked, and, other economies in other countries who are not regulated nearly as badly as we (Americans), "can catch" up and surpass our economy. It is all about the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Google it....It is all about money, not saving "mother earth". Unfortunately, many do gooders have been hoodwinked by those who want to blame America for a natural warming trend, and chop up our economy in the name of saving the goddess Gaia also known as Mother Earth. It's just more religion and money. Earth worship disguising the lust for money and power. Nothing changes under this old sun...
Regardless of what folks uninitiated with the area think, the lakes do not freeze over, and whatever *cold air* passes over, it always passes over water, rather than ice.
Lifted -- you neglected to quote what I said in it's entirety.
Well okay on what you quoted...but your quote was not in its entirety either, so forgive me if I still don't understand what I quoted, even if together with your quote.
As far as the Great Lakes never freezing over...
EARTH OBSERVATION
Ice Covers the Great Lakes
Raw Desktop Available 1024 x 768
Image by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA GSFC
Toronto - Mar 17, 2003
With spring just a few weeks away, the North American Great Lakes are still locked in winter. This image from March 9, 2003, shows ice almost completely covering several lakes, including the largest lake -- Lake Superior, at upper left.
Just left of image center, Lake Michigan shows a ring of ice around its shores and at its northern end, while to the east, Lake Huron is almost completely covered. South of Huron, Lake Erie is veiled by thin clouds, but through the clouds, ice is visible covering all but the northern parts of the lake. To the northeast, Lake Ontario appears relatively ice-free beneath the clouds.
Ice cover on Lake Erie is not uncommon, since it is the shallowest of all the lakes, but the big lakes -- Superior and Huron -- rarely freeze completely over; the big freeze has interrupted shipping and ferry lanes in the region.
Ice experts from the Canadian Ice Service were quoted in media reports as saying it may be April before the ice thaws completely.
from the image, Lake Michigan must be hell, since it doesnt freeze over, heh heh.
Note that Lake Erie isnt quite completely frozen over in this image, but it has happened. See below...
these questions from a Penn State meteorology course...
Question 1. Which one of the Great Lakes completely freezes over most frequently in winter?
a. Lake Superior
b. Lake Michigan
c. Lake Huron
d. Lake Erie
e. Lake Ontario
SOLUTION: Lake Erie
Question 2. Of the five Great Lakes, the one which experiences the coldest winter mean temperature is not the one that freezes over most often. What factor(s) other than temperature determine whether or not a lake freezes?
SOLUTION: The depth of the water and the size of the lake. Lake Erie is the second smallest of the Great Lakes and it is the shallowest by far.
I see I should have added the words *extra moisture* before the unfrozen water statement.
Sorry.
David
I think we just had a communication problem. I think in terms of the famous lake effect snows, perhaps most copious in NY on the lee side of Lake Ontario, and where I used to spend some time...including a few Christmas vacations...with relatives in Erie, PA, where one december I was there it snowed almost every day of the month (28 of 31 I think). Cold air is warmed by the lake waters, and in the process become more moist, as warmer air of course can hold more moisture.
I apologize for any tone that might come from my post, I think I was reacting to the term ludicrous.
Recommended Posts
Catcup
I'll toss a long on the fire for you, but I hate to tell you that global warming is a reality. I know it's hard to believe during the winter, especially the ones we have up north and near the Great Lakes.
However, we are welcoming Polar Bears to the endangered species list now. They are drowning in record numbers because their habitat, the polar ice cap, is melting, with large chunks of it breaking off, floating out to sea, and stranding bears miles from solid ground.
A sad state of affairs, but true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hills Bro
I'm just not a Believer but I could use a Polar Bear Coat for Christmas even with the risk of having it spray painted by those wackos. How ironic.. isn't spray paint one of those nasty killers of the ozone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morgan
My uncle is a democrat, very dedicated to his party. Even he jokes about standing outside using aerosol cans praying for that global warming we've been promised.
:P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
The reason we are having colder winters is a result of global warming.
Global warming stalls the natural water-flow patterns of the Atlantic ocean that pump tropical air toward the north Atlantic, and carry cold water south, leading to much colder winters in areas which include our neck of the woods.
Check it out:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2005/021...ngwarning.shtml
Edited by CatcupLink to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Hillsbro ................
It might just be on its way ......... I am here in Alaska of course and we went from -20 plus in our area up to 40 degrees and melted two feet of snow off the top of our 5 these past days. The creek has thawed and the top and froze and thawed again.
We are supposed to go back to freezing which means the north winds must be blowing down and sending you the south winds back your direction.
Hope you warm up soon ........ but .......... becareful the ice it causes when melting.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Global warming is a crock of ****.
30 years ago, it was *global cooling* that was promoted.
I guess the blue color over the world didn't look as *alarming* as the red from global warming.
Personally -- I think both sides are alarmists that don't deserve the time of day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coupcake
Hills,
Hey, we only got an inch or two of snow so far..gotta move down the road this way.. that's why we call it Fairport.:)
JoAnn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
hmm, doesn't seem to have posted the cartoon. sorry
It was a snowstorm stuck car, with two people trudging through waist deep snow. One says to the other, "keep repeating, 'at least we don't have hurricanes, at least we don't have hurricanes....' "
Edited by HAPe4meLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
This one has been on my "things to read" list for awhile now.
Anybody read this one?
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
There is no doubt about the warming. There are varying degrees of doubt about the cause. If the cause is a combination of natural and human factors, there are varying degrees of doubt about how much to attribute to each. And of course there is the most doubt about what we can and should do, and how we should do it...e.g. do we put iron clamps on our emmisions while our neighbors are allowed to spew toxins galore over our borders.
But to go back to the opening of this thread, we need a perspective. Like realize a one degree change in our average temperature over 20 to 30 years is more significant than out 40 or 50 degree (in the Dakotas at least) day to day swings in temperature.
If warmer temperatures warm the Great Lakes, for example, even a little, say enough to keep the ice off. you can really get Buffaloed with heavy snow when cold air moves over those lakes, since it will pick up a lot more moisture than it would blowing over ice.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
My house is 4 blocks from Lake Superior. For the record -- I have lived here for 26 years. Ice is a regular thing on the big lake -- year after year after year.
Sometimes we are *locked* in by ice here in Duluth, but that is because the winds blow it in to shore, after it has formed out in the main body of the lake.
The Great Lakes NEVER freeze over totally.
Yes -- I will grant you that ice forms (the average temp of Lake Superior is no more than 38 to 40 degrees year round), but it never freezes over like the backyard pond you might have in your neighborhood.
To propound that cold air moving over the Great Lakes, picking up moisture from unfrozen water is ludicrous.
Regardless of what folks uninitiated with the area think, the lakes do not freeze over, and whatever *cold air* passes over, it always passes over water, rather than ice.
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Global warming is a reality, but it isn't as simple as just "the whole Earth getting warmer all the time" but is actually a complicated "climate change" that basically just means that the weather gets worse over time. As others have pointed out, the ice in the Arctic have melted at a record level, resulting in the deaths of many polar bears, as well as destroying the Inuit way of life. To them, global warming is a real part of daily life.
However, even calling it "global warming" is a bit of a misnomer, as what is really happening is that things are basically just getting more unstable. As the temperature rises, more ice melts, the ocean's water levels raise, but it gets worse. A half degree raise of temperature in the gulf of Mexico is equivalent to the energy of nearly a million atomic bombs. I live in Houston, which is not directly on but near the gulf coast. We are going to see a lot more Katrinas and Ritas in this region, because the energy caused by the raise in temperatures feeds the intensity of the storms. Global warming is appropriate here as well as the arctic, but eventually it will lead to global cooling.
The problem is that as the ice melts, the fresh water will pour into the oceans and disturb the currents that keep the northern areas of the world warm. After the currents are shut down (which is already happening at an alarming pace) places like England and the northern U.S. will eventually be covered in ice and way too cold for people to keep heavily populated. Eventually, the cycle may go back and things balance out to the way things are now, maybe they won't.
This whole thing will take a long time to come to full fruition, but the effects are already being felt. Record heat waves in the summer, record hurricane seasons, and record storms in the winter all are potentially the results of climate change. It's likely to only get worse.
On a side note, I've not seen any serious scientists questioning global warming. I know Michael Chrichton recently wrote a book making global warming sound like some sort of conspiracy, but it was a work of fiction. The few scientists that have said that global warming does not exist always seem to have been given huge grants to fund their research by companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron. There is no credible argument against global warming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
This cracks me up. That is like saying when one is standing outside without a coat when it is fifteen degrees below zero that; "The reason I am freezing is because it is so warm outside........."
Now that is rich...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hills Bro
I got up this morning before the dawn of crack, after all the early worm gets the bird..
It all makes sense to me now :blink: :blink:
global warming...it takes the sails out of my wind. :mellow: :D
Edited by Hills BroLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
True David ... but they get the time of day, plus millions in tax dollars for research .. that is what it is all about.
Far as I can tell, there is of course global warming, in a natural trend that will eventually become serious cooling. A little warming is much better than the cooling part. But we would have a thousand years or more to think about it. The Kyoto traty is pure politics, not science. It is funny that people claim to feel global warming when the change is like 1.5 degrees over the last 100 years, and only half a degree in the last 50. Like yeah, it seems a half a degree warmer today than it did on average on this date 50 years ago. LOL
Even the whacko kyoto treaty enthusiasts admit the treaty would make a minimal difference, but it would help cripple the US economy. As I understand it, India and China were exempt. What a world, what a world ... I'm melting ... I'm melting .... LOL name that movie!
Polar ice caps aren't close to melting ... if it got warm enough, warmer ocean temps would mean more evaporation and more precipitation ... yielding more snow up north where the snow never melts ... I guess that means bigger glaciers. Rising ocean temps could actually mean a decrease in ocean levels ... as some say has happened before.
What I really mean to say is WHERE IS MY MILLION DOLLAR GRANT. Give me some money and I will throw good parties for my global warming compadres and we can all keep debating on the taxpayer dime. OK, $100K will suffice, but then it is BYOB.
What I know is the last month has been 10 degrees below average, so it must be global cooling. Or maybe since I haven't been chatting, there is a shortage of hot air around here. ;)
This has been a 3 glasses of wine response ... end of my last year wine ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I've only had two glasses of wine and ten hot wings, but I distinctly remember reading something about the north and south poles moving and shifting because of the earth's rotational pull. Something about the North Pole ending up in Kansas, I think?
I've been looking for it again, but all I can find is articles how the earth's thawing in some areas which is good for one species of penguins but worse for others. (Global Warming) this article also mentions that it's freezing more in some areas, but warmer in others....
Another thing I've thought of and that could be totally irrelevant is how here in FL they build houses based on fifty year flood plain plans, but Disney and the other attractions have built on 100 year plans. It seems as though that's only as far back as any records really go, so how do we know for sure this is global warming and not really just a shifting in the climates and locations?
Just pondering as I'm no scientist and know really nothing about any of this.But, I also remember being taught in TWI that "the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" as meaning that God protects the Eearth and us and that we don't have to be worried about the Earth ever being destroyed by any means.... But then again, I consider the source on this....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hiya Bill! Haven't seen you in a while.
What really ticks me off about this whole global warming (or cooling) crap is ---
where is the data from the beginning of time --- eh???
The very best that scientist's can do is from recorded data, and how far back does that extend??
Maybe 100 years like you said. Shucks-- I'll give them another hundred on top of that, but anything they might say, deduce, or declare is miniscual compared to the time that earth has been here (be it 6,000 years, or millions of years -- depending on your theology).
How do they know what it was like originally? They don't. Sure -- they can make deductions, educated guesses, yada yada, but to say that *this is the way it is* is like farting in the wind -- smell dissipating and no substance.
And you are right about India and China being exempt from Kyoto. Why is US of A being called to task, when others aren't?
If everyone is so all-fired concerned about this *imminent threat*, why in the @@@@ aren't all nations being made to comply??? You're right about the Kyoto treaty being nothing more than an effort to cripple US (read U.S.)
And to those who think that global cooling will be a result of global warming, I have only this to say.
Cooling was *preached* 30 years ago, and warming is relatively new on the scene.
In terms that an ex-cult member might understand ---
That's like preaching Armegeddon before salvation.
What is being touted now is putting the cart before the horse.
And the video recording of the Rodney King beating was erroneous,
and O.J. Simpson was really innocent too.
Same logic. :(
It doesn't work in real life.
Though some alarmists will make it appear to be so.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
In regards to Rhino's post;
It is all about the "redistribution of wealth", via some of Al Gore's philosophy and others. Basically, it is WRONG that we Americans live as happily and as abundantly as we do, and we must "re-distribute this wealth". Never a problem that Al Gore is filthy rich off of his coal mine in Tennessee. Therefore, we must wrack and ruin America's economy by taxing us to the max on fossil fuels, and curtailing our use of said fuels by a large percentage according to the "Kyoto protocol". This way, our economy will be wrecked, and, other economies in other countries who are not regulated nearly as badly as we (Americans), "can catch" up and surpass our economy. It is all about the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Google it....It is all about money, not saving "mother earth". Unfortunately, many do gooders have been hoodwinked by those who want to blame America for a natural warming trend, and chop up our economy in the name of saving the goddess Gaia also known as Mother Earth. It's just more religion and money. Earth worship disguising the lust for money and power. Nothing changes under this old sun...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Huh? Are you sure you didn't mean to say frozen water???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Lifted -- you neglected to quote what I said in it's entirety.
Since you missed it, I provided it for you above.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mea Culpa -- Lifted --- I apologize
I see I should have added the words *extra moisture* before the unfrozen water statement.
Sorry.
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Well okay on what you quoted...but your quote was not in its entirety either, so forgive me if I still don't understand what I quoted, even if together with your quote.
As far as the Great Lakes never freezing over...
EARTH OBSERVATION
Ice Covers the Great Lakes
Raw Desktop Available 1024 x 768
Image by Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA GSFC
Toronto - Mar 17, 2003
With spring just a few weeks away, the North American Great Lakes are still locked in winter. This image from March 9, 2003, shows ice almost completely covering several lakes, including the largest lake -- Lake Superior, at upper left.
Just left of image center, Lake Michigan shows a ring of ice around its shores and at its northern end, while to the east, Lake Huron is almost completely covered. South of Huron, Lake Erie is veiled by thin clouds, but through the clouds, ice is visible covering all but the northern parts of the lake. To the northeast, Lake Ontario appears relatively ice-free beneath the clouds.
Ice cover on Lake Erie is not uncommon, since it is the shallowest of all the lakes, but the big lakes -- Superior and Huron -- rarely freeze completely over; the big freeze has interrupted shipping and ferry lanes in the region.
Ice experts from the Canadian Ice Service were quoted in media reports as saying it may be April before the ice thaws completely.
Link to image referred to above
from the image, Lake Michigan must be hell, since it doesnt freeze over, heh heh.
Note that Lake Erie isnt quite completely frozen over in this image, but it has happened. See below...
these questions from a Penn State meteorology course...
Question 1. Which one of the Great Lakes completely freezes over most frequently in winter?
a. Lake Superior
b. Lake Michigan
c. Lake Huron
d. Lake Erie
e. Lake Ontario
SOLUTION: Lake Erie
Question 2. Of the five Great Lakes, the one which experiences the coldest winter mean temperature is not the one that freezes over most often. What factor(s) other than temperature determine whether or not a lake freezes?
SOLUTION: The depth of the water and the size of the lake. Lake Erie is the second smallest of the Great Lakes and it is the shallowest by far.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I think we just had a communication problem. I think in terms of the famous lake effect snows, perhaps most copious in NY on the lee side of Lake Ontario, and where I used to spend some time...including a few Christmas vacations...with relatives in Erie, PA, where one december I was there it snowed almost every day of the month (28 of 31 I think). Cold air is warmed by the lake waters, and in the process become more moist, as warmer air of course can hold more moisture.
I apologize for any tone that might come from my post, I think I was reacting to the term ludicrous.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.